Harlow v. Fitzgerald
|Harlow v. Fitzgerald|
|Argued November 30, 1981|
Decided June 24, 1982
|Full case name||Bryce Harlow, et al. v. A. Ernest Fitzgerald|
|Citations||457 U.S. 800 (more)|
|Prior||Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|
|Presidential aides were not entitled to absolute immunity, but instead deserved qualified immunity.|
|Majority||Powell, joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor|
|Concurrence||Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun|
|Concurrence||Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun|
Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald was a deputy for management systems in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force. He discovered $2 billion in cost overruns and technical problems in the Lockheed C5-A program, which had been concealed by the officials at the Pentagon. He testified before the Joint Economic Committee in Congress, and following this, he was blacklisted from roles of any significance.
Following the release of the Watergate tapes, Fitzgerald was mentioned by President Nixon who boasted that he was responsible for firing Fitzgerald. He filed a lawsuit against government officials claiming that he lost his position as a contractor with the United States Air Force because of whistleblower testimony made before Congress in 1969. Absolute immunity was claimed by the officials involved, including Richard Nixon and several of his aides, generating several additional cases which made their way to the Supreme Court. While Nixon, named in the lawsuit, was found to have absolute immunity in his role as president, as decided in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Harlow vs. Fitzgerald examined whether this degree of immunity extended to the president's aides.
In an 8 to 1 decision, the court held that government officials other than the president were generally entitled to qualified immunity. An official can obtain absolute immunity, but must "first show that the responsibilities of his office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield from liability. He must then demonstrate that he was discharging the protected function when performing the act for which liability is asserted."
Despite its immediate application to White House aides in the case at bar, the case is regarded as most important for its revision of the qualified immunity standard that is applicable to government actors more generally. The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
- "Nixon v. Fitzgerald". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2018-09-06.
- Text of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
|This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.|